I'm not sure how good or mad the F2012 was but all I can really add to this discussion is that in something like 25 years of following F1, I can't remember a single season where more people in the know about these things have made so many comments about FA getting so much out of a car.

That then leads me to think that although not a bad car, the F2012 was not top line in 2012.

There is more to the "Art form" than just the Quali. Getting the most out ofthe car and out of the DRS in the early laps are also part of it. If Seb wasn't getting those early laps in Quali wouldn't mean much.

Yes I know, that's what I'm talking about.

The strategy isn't worth a damn unless they're on the front row. Or possibly starting from 3rd.

There is more to the "Art form" than just the Quali. Getting the most out ofthe car and out of the DRS in the early laps are also part of it. If Seb wasn't getting those early laps in Quali wouldn't mean much.

Yes I know, that's what I'm talking about.

The strategy isn't worth a damn unless they're on the front row. Or possibly starting from 3rd.

Qualifying played a huge part in Seb's 2012 WDC.

This is only true if you're evaluating fastest and not best. Reliability is also key. If you have bulletproof reliability then you do not need to be fastest unless the fastest has it also. Red Bull didn't and McLaren very definately didn't.

There is more to the "Art form" than just the Quali. Getting the most out ofthe car and out of the DRS in the early laps are also part of it. If Seb wasn't getting those early laps in Quali wouldn't mean much.

Yes I know, that's what I'm talking about.

The strategy isn't worth a damn unless they're on the front row. Or possibly starting from 3rd.

Qualifying played a huge part in Seb's 2012 WDC.

This is only true if you're evaluating fastest and not best. Reliability is also key. If you have bulletproof reliability then you do not need to be fastest unless the fastest has it also. Red Bull didn't and McLaren very definately didn't.

Yes I know, I wasn't really talking about outright best car. That's been discussed to death.

I was addressing Fiki's question "Since when does qualifying win the WDC?" and pointed out that it played a massive role in Seb's 2012 WDC.

I was addressing Fiki's question "Since when does qualifying win the WDC?" and pointed out that it played a massive role in Seb's 2012 WDC.

As Ferrari very well know, pole position helps; surely they remember the lengths Schumacher used to go to, to keep faster starters behind him until he and his car were up to temperature? The point is that last year's Ferrari may not have been very good in qualifying, but it was good enough for Alonso to lead the world championship for drivers, until Alonso lost his cool at the start of the Japanese Grand Prix.A car that is perfect for qualifying may or may not be perfect for racing with a lot of fuel. But if it isn't, race pace should mean that DRS should make it possible to make up for less than perfect qualifying. The other way round is far more worrying, as Jarno Trulli can explain. (Or Schumacher for that matter.)

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I repeatedly read that Alonso was awesome last season because he remained competitive right up until the last race in an average car. But how do we know that the F2012 was not a competitive car compared to say the Red Bull? The only real benchmark was Massa who seemed to be struggling with form due to setup and tire issues until the final third of the season (much like JB did in the McLaren) at which point he (and the car) looked very good. It seems the main reason everyone berates the F2012 is because Alonso kept saying how bad it was!

Maybe the F2012 was a pretty decent car (not a dog) and Alonso had a pretty decent season (not <insert superlative here>).

How do "we" (the fans) know it was not a good car? By observing the car and driver. If anyone makes the effort to closely observe how the car is behaving, how much the driver is struggling, they can learn from it.

Unless you want to be blindly led around by the nose by some pundit and believe anything they are saying without truly comprehending what's happening on the track, go to the trouble to learn about vehicle dynamics, the science and art of racing. You can do it. Most of us can pick out a quality soccer player on the pitch, we know enough about the game to understand the sport and separate the BS from quality play. It can also happen in racing, learn the science and art of racing, and you will be informed and educated.

Thanks for the somewhat patronizing advice! I've been following F1 closely for at least 10 years, have raced single seaters and karts as an amateur and have an Engineering degree but I confess I do not watch soccer.

My feelings studying the science and art of racing during the 2012 season are that the F2012 was generally competitive on Sundays (after a difficult birth), and that Alonso drove as well as Vettel and Hamilton, but the stand out driver was Räikkönen. I agree with others in this thread that the opinions of well-respected insiders (Frank Williams for example) are telling, but I also think that Alonso has done an exceptional job of promoting himself as over-delivering in an average car.

To clarify, I don't want people to moan about Raikkonen. That's negative. He was a useful example for my argument, to show how what these threads are really about is undermining the drivers and teams who succeeded against "their" guy. I don't want people to be undermining the success and achievements of others, Raikkonen included. I can't abide this hypocritical, false science of questioning the success and achievements of Red Bull and Vettel and Alonso from 2012.

That is the only way of discerning whether a driver has made it. Everyone talks about them - good, bad, neutral or otherwise. Foes will not say anything good 99% of the time, so you have to settle for the bad. But the idea is that something is being said.

For example, what is the general consensus opinion of Charles Pic, good, bad, neutral or otherwise?

Thanks for the somewhat patronizing advice! I've been following F1 closely for at least 10 years, have raced single seaters and karts as an amateur and have an Engineering degree but I confess I do not watch soccer.

My feelings studying the science and art of racing during the 2012 season are that the F2012 was generally competitive on Sundays (after a difficult birth), and that Alonso drove as well as Vettel and Hamilton, but the stand out driver was Räikkönen. I agree with others in this thread that the opinions of well-respected insiders (Frank Williams for example) are telling, but I also think that Alonso has done an exceptional job of promoting himself as over-delivering in an average car.

With all due respect for your 10 years of watching and your engineering degree, I fail to see how others, supposedly more in the know than us here on the forum (though you would never know that to read this thread) praising Alonso for "over-delivering in an average car" is an "exceptional job of promoting himself by Alonso.

A person tends to see what they want to see, we all do it, and I feel that you certainly have. Call it "patronizing" if you wish..., I think it was more a case of sound advice Blinky was giving.

I think the situation was very different to what we saw. They knew they had a better than average car but they decided to tactically sandbag their claims until it became a reality which they struggled in the first half of the season. They knew their car was especially trimmed for race pace with good starts they thought they'll confuse the oposition (and I think they managed it, they beat Maccas). So ky opinion, F2012 was NOT A BAD CAR. Never was.

It wasn't that it was not a good car, it was a good car, it had minor issues such as keeping up with upgrades and the tire ware especially when the she was using the harder compound tires. The rear end is not as planted as it is with the like of the Bulls and McLarens. Ferrari was just not consistent enough. Saying this Alonso did a fantastic job finishing second shy of 3 points with a car like that. It begs the question how Vettel would have done driving the F2012: Check out this thread.

For me the bigger question is why were so many respected pundits so willing to buy Ferrari's downplayed expectations? Its a shame its still so unpopular to go against the grain a bit in this sport. In other categories its more acceptable to call it like you see it, as in other sports.

For me the bigger question is why were so many respected pundits so willing to buy Ferrari's downplayed expectations? Its a shame its still so unpopular to go against the grain a bit in this sport. In other categories its more acceptable to call it like you see it, as in other sports.

Perhaps it is because it was what they believed from what they saw on the track and the inner knowledge that we, as brilliant as some here feel they are, do not have access to? Perhaps, just perhaps, these pundits, were not pawns in Ferrari's supposed phony game to downplay expectations?

If it was but one, or even two, "respected pundit", then perhaps we blow it off as meaningless, but as you say, it was MANY respected pundits,

This part is not directed necessarily at ashley, as I am not exactly sure where she stands on this even after reading the post....

However, it appears that some here feel that they were ALL wrong, and PF1 forumites the purveyors of wisdom.

As I have said before, when it is not only the team, but much of the media, and even other F1 personnel saying that the car was not a great car... then we either have a great conspiracy involving much of F1 and the media that follow it... or perhaps we should give more credence to what they are saying.

Damn, I wish I were as all-knowing and clever as some of you.

_________________Forza Ferrari WCCs = 16 WDCs = 15

Last edited by Blake on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You can give them all the credence you want, but the car still delivered 2nd in the WCC and 15 podiums. There were more to be had on Felipe's side too if his primary function at the end of the year wasn't to help Fernando. The paddock called the Merc a dog - and its results were testimony to that. They call the Ferrari a dog and its results for most of the season, and for both drivers in the end, say the exact opposite. It looked awful in the beginning - it made sense then to call a spade a spade, but it had fantastic race pace from then on, bulletproof reliability compared to the others, and with Ferrari downplaying the expectations the media just continued to say the same things. Nobody wants to look wrong anyway.

You can give them all the credence you want, but the car still delivered 2nd in the WCC and 15 podiums. There were more to be had on Felipe's side too if his primary function at the end of the year wasn't to help Fernando. The paddock called the Merc a dog - and its results were testimony to that. They call the Ferrari a dog and its results for most of the season, and for both drivers in the end, say the exact opposite. It looked awful in the beginning - it made sense then to call a spade a spade, but it had fantastic race pace from then on, bulletproof reliability compared to the others, and with Ferrari downplaying the expectations the media just continued to say the same things. Nobody wants to look wrong anyway.

Sorry ashley but I think it was very obvious that Ferrari were terrible in the first part of the year and even in the second part, they looked much weaker than the Red Bulls. It wasn't a complete dog except in the beginning but it was definitely an incredible feat that Alonso got to within three points of the WDC.

I give more credence to the quality of the team strategies, pit work as well as exceptional driving by Alonso initially and at the end by Massa.

What is the definition of a "good car". It is a good car because it could beat a Marussia, HRT, or Lotus? I did not see a Ferrari that was able to qualify for the front row on a regular basis. As a result, even if it's race pace was better than the qualifying pace, the drivers were constantly having to work their way through the cars ahead of them on the grid. That often made wins all but impossible. It also put the cars/drivers at greater risk, not a desirable situation.

It is usually acknowledged that the McLaren was the fastest car on the grid for most of the year. The Red Bulls managed to again win the WCC as well as the WDC, as their cars had a good combination of qualifying and race pace. Ferrari managed to overcome the shortcomings of the car to finish second in both championships, but as I said, it was as much or more the team strategies, pit work, persistency and good effort by the drivers... and some errors by the competition... to pull what at best was the third (or even 4th) best car on the grid into those positions.

Good on Ferrari for getting so many pundits and F1 personnel to buy into their self-degrading little game that they forced on us.

Kind of makes one wonder though............why would Ferrari want to make Fernando look good by saying they have created a poor car??? Does that seem like a wise thing to do for a company that builds ultra-expensive exotic cars with a reputation as great performance???

"Win on Sunday, sell on Monday".... a long time saying about race cars.

So Ferrari has a new approach. Tell the world "We have not made a car as fast as a our competition, yet please buy from us on Monday"

That is all very good, ashley. As a life long Ferrari fan, I sincerely am glad to see that, however, it may not have as much meaning as you think, as for the most part Ferrari is many months (even years in some cases) out on orders, so while that article indicates their deliveries have been great, it does not necessarily mean that their sales were up dramatically during the first half of 2012. It could be that their sales are up as well as their deliveries, but I do not know that for sure. The a few years ago I visited with Ferrari dealer (Hollywood), they had not had a new Ferrari on the showroom floor for 3 years with one exception, a car that was not picked up because the buyer got busted for drugs before the car arrived, all their other sales were sold before the cars arrived. Three or four years ago, I visited Ferrari of Denver and at that time there was a 2-3 year waiting list for ordered Ferraris. Most Ferraris seen at a dealership are used ones. That may have changed in recent years, again, something I do not know for sure.

That said, how can you be so sure that poor performance "never has" hurt sales? If you are right, then the whole "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" saying that car manufacturers have used for ages is meaningless, or is this another one of those things that we at PF1 know better than they do?

Ferrari is not the same as other OEM's, and they never have been. Different business model, different racing model. If you are a long time Ferrari fan you should know ol' Enzo formed the Scuderia nearly 20 years before selling production cars to finance their racing efforts. Even your man Brundle acknowledges they sell cars to race, while others race to sell cars. He was the first I heard actually phrase it that way.

And you don't have to wait years to buy most new Ferrari cars. A very good pal of mine works at one of the highest volume Ferrari dealerships in the US, and they only have long waits for very limited production cars, or rare colors. My friend also reports that most of the staff and nearly all of the regular customers have no idea who Fernando Alonso is. Besides...read the rest of the article, or search their sales figures on your own. Ferrari sales numbers have been on the up-trend for a long time, regardless of their 5 year title drought.

Ferrari is not the same as other OEM's, and they never have been. Different business model, different racing model. If you are a long time Ferrari fan you should know ol' Enzo formed the Scuderia nearly 20 years before selling production cars to finance their racing efforts. Even your man Brundle acknowledges they sell cars to race, while others race to sell cars. He was the first I heard actually phrase it that way.

And you don't have to wait years to buy most new Ferrari cars. A very good pal of mine works at one of the highest volume Ferrari dealerships in the US, and they only have long waits for very limited production cars, or rare colors. My friend also reports that most of the staff and nearly all of the regular customers have no idea who Fernando Alonso is. Besides...read the rest of the article, or search their sales figures on your own. Ferrari sales numbers have been on the up-trend for a long time, regardless of their 5 year title drought.

That isn't too hard to believe to be honest. Ferrari is a very prestigious brand name. They are associated with building fast cars. Most people who can probably afford to buy a Ferrari will buy one because they think it will look good in their collection. I doubt that many of the sales are of a direct result of F1. Maybe some potential customers come from F1, but I suspect the majority come from other sources.

On top of that, just because the Ferrari F1 team is doing poorly on track, doesn't mean their road cars will behave poorly either. An F1 season is not that representative of the performance of a road car. Just because they had a poor year on track, doesn't mean their road cars will suffer as well. Maybe if they have a prolonged slump in form of maybe 10+ years then we may see a decline in sales. But I doubt a 1 year slump makes that much difference

Jeremy Clarkson once pointed out that the worse the F1 team is, the better their road cars are, and vice versa, on the premiss that they are a small company and can only put their best work into one or the other

I am well aware of Ferrari's history... and of Enzo.... and the Scuderia. It so so good of you to point that out to me, despite my having followed the marque since the 1950s.

Brundle is not "my man", but I am also aware that Enzo sold cars to race, I did not need Brundle to tell me that either, as that knowledge has been around long before Mr.Brundle.

Lastly, concerning their "5 year title drought".... it has been a period where they have been competitive most of the time, even without the best car... so yes, it probably has not affected sales as much as it might for others.

Delivery time for Ferraris as of today, according to my friend who owns a Ferrari/Maserati/Bentley/Lotus dealership:

458 Italia coupe - 6 months

458 Italia spyder - 2 years

F12 Berlinetta - 2.5 years

I did not ask about the California (6-8 months although it has been in production for over 3 years now).

or the FF (18 mo wait as of 2011) as he was busy when I called, so I did a quick google search on those two.

Sorry, I did not ask Bill how many of his customers know who Fernando Alonso is either, maybe next time.

Two friends got their Californias in less time than it took another to get his Ford Focus, and I know of at least one person who bought his 458 coupe same day, off the lot, brand new. So methinks wait times depend on the region, as they do with any manufacturer. And regarding sales vs deliveries - Ferrari sang the same "we don't have a good car" song for most of 2011 too, so there is no reason to think it has a negative impact on their sales of road cars. Especially when they have AF Corse cleaning up around the world in cars that actually do have an obvious relation to the production offerings.

What's the point of this thread apart than attacking a couple of drivers?

It depends if people want to debate sensibly or not. 2012 was an interesting season because we saw multiple drivers qualifying well down the field and getting good results (e.g. Alonso, Hamilton, Perez, Vettel). It wasn't all about qualifying. Being the fastest in qualifying was not neccessary to win if you were fast in the race and had pretty well bullet proof reliability. A lot of things had to come together though. Alonso had to drive superbly. A few wet races/safety cars had to be thrown into the mix and the competition had to have reliability issues or pit stop problems etc. to balance out the pace issues. The key point for me though and its been the case before is that the fastest car and the best car are not always the same thing. I think that Alonso drove brilliantly and possibly better than the rest but that reliabilty and solid race pace can balance out speed over a season to give you a shot at the championship. Rating cars on speed alone doesn't tell the whole story. Kimi learned this to his cost at McLaren.

Alonso was good in 2012 and very nearly won the title. He would have deserved it too in my view if he had but its wrong to see the car as significantly worse than the McLaren and Red Bull based on pace alone.

What's the point of this thread apart than attacking a couple of drivers?

It depends if people want to debate sensibly or not. 2012 was an interesting season because we saw multiple drivers qualifying well down the field and getting good results (e.g. Alonso, Hamilton, Perez, Vettel). It wasn't all about qualifying. Being the fastest in qualifying was not neccessary to win if you were fast in the race and had pretty well bullet proof reliability. A lot of things had to come together though. Alonso had to drive superbly. A few wet races/safety cars had to be thrown into the mix and the competition had to have reliability issues or pit stop problems etc. to balance out the pace issues. The key point for me though and its been the case before is that the fastest car and the best car are not always the same thing. I think that Alonso drove brilliantly and possibly better than the rest but that reliabilty and solid race pace can balance out speed over a season to give you a shot at the championship. Rating cars on speed alone doesn't tell the whole story. Kimi learned this to his cost at McLaren.

Alonso was good in 2012 and very nearly won the title. He would have deserved it too in my view if he had but its wrong to see the car as significantly worse than the McLaren and Red Bull based on pace alone.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I think Felipe could have won in Brazil if the primary focus of his strategy was to win.

Possibly, but its still 1/10 and still only in the wet. Note Alonso won Malaysia (wet) and took his only 2 poles in the wet, one leading to him winning in Germany and another 2nd place in Silversone. It was a great car in the wet.

Wins aren't always what wins a season - sometimes reliability and consistency are more important, which is why determining what is a "good car" depends on the season and must take reliability into consideration equally with saturday pace, sunday pace.

I think Felipe could have won in Brazil if the primary focus of his strategy was to win.

Possibly, but its still 1/10 and still only in the wet. Note Alonso won Malaysia (wet) and took his only 2 poles in the wet, one leading to him winning in Germany and another 2nd place in Silversone. It was a great car in the wet.

"The F2012 started the winter tests with problems. How big were they really?

Fry: Some things didn't work as planned. We also made a number of fundamental errors. Initially the task was to localize and fix those. The first test gave us a bad awakening, the second answered our questions, but we didn't have the time until Melbourne to react. That happened with the Barcelona update"

"Why was your car so good in the rain?

Fry: I don't think that the cause was our car. Rather, it was Alonso. Especially in Malaysia, when our car still was difficult to drive. He did an unbelievable job there. And when he was half a second faster than the rest in Hockenheim, that was the driver and not the car."

"Why did the F2012 work better on high-speed tracks?

Fry: Did it? Okay, in Monza we could easily have been on pole without the problems at the rear suspension. I'm not so sure we were especially strong in Spa. But one could see our problems become bigger the more downforce the track required."

"Why did the car not react well to most of the modifications during the second part of the season?

Fry: We were a long way back at the start of the season. That always makes it simple to make big steps. For us, those came in Barcelona and Montreal. Usually, you can improve half a tenth or a tenth between two races, but the observer does not notice this, also because the effects of the improvements can vary from track type to track type. We also improved during the second part of the season, but not as much as the others did. There are two philosophies about how to develop your car. There's the Mercedes or Honda philosophy of waiting three or four races and then bringing a big step. And there's the way that is used by RBR, McLaren, and also Ferrari. To bring a little bit to every race. Every team has phases during which its improvements are bigger or smaller. McLaren had the best car at the start, then stagnated, and was strong at the end again."

(Translation by KnucklesAgain from the Autosport forum - he posted the full translation there, I am not sure if it is against the rules to copy the whole of it here? In any case, it is an interesting interview, worth the read)

Just forget it... The 2012 was not a "good" it was GOOD to GREAT car apparently, the equal of the best in the field. It would seem that it was only the ineptitude of Alonso and Massa compared to the Great Vettel that kept Ferrari from winning the WDC and WCC with their good/great car.

Now some of you can rest in peace...

I thought that Lamo's last couple of posts spelled it out pretty well, but then what does he know, or me for that matter. Hell, I just learned about history of Ferrari from ashley a day or two ago, and Lamo has now learned about what is more important than wins. I wish the hell that I known all that stuff before now.

Maybe if I had pointed out that I had driven a Ferrari with a 2007 F1 champion plaque, I would suddenly know more about the history of the Ferrari too. Unfortunately, the Ferraris that I have driven were only 60s & 70s models, when that guy that ashley told me about... Enzo something ran the company ??? ... just can't seem to keep up with the Joneses.